Gravitation Revisited

^ : GRAVITATION REVISITED

u

< ; B.G. Sidharth

^ ; International Institute for Applicable Mathematics & Information Sciences

^H' Hyderabad (India) & Udine (Italy)

dc B.M. Birla Science Centre, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 063 (India)

i'

D

bJ:);

^ [ Abstract

O

'nj ' Gravitation has posed a puzzle and a problem for many decades.

^»-,. Attempts to unify it with other fundamental interactions have failed.

These problems and puzzles have been underscored by the likes of
Witten and Weinberg. We survey this and argue that gravitation has
a different character compared to other fundamental interactions - it
^1 is an energy distributed over all the elementary particles in the uni-

■^ ' verse. The above puzzle and problem is resolved satisfactorily. These

considerations lead to a varying G cosmology consistent with observa-

^f , tion. It is argued that apart from the usual tests, the above explains

^D I in addition the anomalous accelerations of the Pioneer spacecrafts.

Q ■ Further tests are also proposed.

• 1— I

>$

1 Introduction

Gravitation has been a puzzle and a challenge for several decades. As Witten
put it P , "The existence of gravity clashes with our description of the rest of
physics by quantum fields" . Indeed after Einstein's formulation of gravita-
tion, a problem that has defied solution has been that of providing a unified
5^ I description of gravitation along with other fundamental interactions. One of

the earliest attempts was that of Hermann Weyl - the gauge geometry [2],
which though elegant was rejected on the grounds that in the final analysis,
it was not really a unification of gravitation with electromagnetism.
Modern approaches to this problem have lead to the abandonment of a
smooth spacetime manifold. Instead, the Planck scale is now taken to be

1

a ininiinuin fundamental scale. In particular, the author's 1997 work, to
be touched upon, threw up a dark energy driven accelerating universe with
a small cosmological constant. In this model, the gravitational constant G
varies with time as in the Dirac cosmology.

Observations from 1998 onwards have shown that the universe is indeed ac-
celerating with a small cosmological constant and that dark energy, rather
than dark matter predominates ^.

Cosmologies with time varying G have also been considered in the past, for
example in the Brans- Dicke theory or in the Dirac large number theory or by
Hoyle lU 13 E] • In the case of the Dirac cosmology, the motivation was
Dirac's observation that the supposedly large number coincidences involving
N, the number of elementary particles in the universe had an underlying
message if it is recognized that

A^ocT (1)

where T is the age of the universe. Equation (0) lead to a G decreasing
inversely with time.

The Brans-Dicke cosmology arose from the work of Jordan who was moti-
vated by Dirac's ideas to try and modify General Relativity suitably. In this
scheme the variation of G could be obtained from a scalar field (f) which would
satisfy a conservation law. This scalar tensor gravity theory was further de-
veloped by Brans and Dicke, in which G was inversely proportional to the
variable field 0. (It may be mentioned that more recently the ideas of Brans
and Dicke have been further generalized.)

In the Hoyle-Narlikar steady state model, it was assumed that in the Machian
sense the inertia of a particle originates from the rest of the matter present
in the universe. This again leads to a variable G. The above references give
further details of these various schemes and their shortcomings which have
lead to their fall out of favour.

In the author's 1997 cosmology particles were fluctuationally created from a
background dark energy, due ultimately to Planck scale effects, in an infla-
tionary type phase transition and this lead to a scenario of an accelerating
universe with a small cosmological constant, which was observationally con-
firmed in 1998 itself by Perlmutter, Schmidt and coworkers as also by the
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey in
2003. The details of this paradigmatic shift in cosmology are all discussed in
references PHUIIIII [121113111111313 CHI- Moreover in the author's cosmology

the various supposedly miraculous large number coincidences as also the oth-
erwise inexplicable Weinberg formula which gives the mass of an elementary
particle in terms of the gravitational constant and the Hubble constant are
also deduced from the underlying theory rather than being ad hoc ^Tj. (In
fact Weinberg noted that his pion mass- Hubble constant relationship cannot
be dismissed as accidental but rather needed to be explained. We will come
back to this later). The gravitational constant is given again by

G=f? (2)

where T is the time (the age of the universe) and Gq is a constant. Further
other routine effects like the precession of the perihelion of Mercury and
the bending of light, the flattening of rotational curves of galaxies etc. are
also explained in this model [ TE\ |H] . Moreover in this model, A is given by
A < 0{H'^) and shows the inverse dependence 1/T^ on time. Already there
is observational evidence for (J2)) as will be noted in section 6.
With this background, first we now give some further tests for equation Q.

2 The Anomalous Acceleration of the Pio-
neer Spacecrafts

The inexplicable anomalous accelerations of the Pioneer spacecrafts which
have been observed by J.D. Anderson and coworkers at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory for well over a decade [121 120] have posed a puzzle. This can be
explained by (0). This can be seen in a simple way as follows: Infact from
the usual orbital equations we have fU]

GM ,^ „. GM

'2tr

vv ~ — ^^ (1 + ecosQ) ^^(1 + ecosQ)

V being the velocity of the spacecraft. It must be observed that the first term
on the right side is the new effect due to ((21). There is now an anomalous
acceleration given by

ttr = (^^)anom = -z: (1 + ecosQ)

Itrv

where

A = r'Q^

If we insert the values for the Pioneer spacecrafts we get

ar ~ —10^'^ cm/sec^

This is the anomalous acceleration reported by Anderson and co-workers.
We will next deduce that the equation Q also explains correctly the observed
decrease in the orbital period of the binary pulsar PSR 1913 + 16, which has
also been attributed to as yet undetected gravitational waves j221-

3 The Binary Pulsar

It may be observed that the energy E of two masses M and m in gravitational
interaction at a distance L is given by

r. GMm

E = — - — = constant (3j

Ij

We note that if this energy decreases by any mechanism, for example by the
emission of gravitational waves, or by the decrease of G, then because of
0, there is a compensation by the decrease in the orbital length and orbital
period. This is the standard General Relativistic explanation for the binary
pulsar P^i? 1913 + 16. We will show that the same holds good, if we are
given (j2)). In this case we have, from (j2))

/i GMm , .

— = — - — = const. (4)

Ij ij

Using (j2)) we can write, for a time increase t,

^ = fiQ- Kt (5)

where we have

i\: = /i (6)

In © /i can be taken to be a constant in view of the fact that G varies very
slowly with time as can be seen from (J2I). Specifically we have

G(r + t)=G(T)-t^ + |^ + ...^G(T)-t^ (7)

where T is the age of the universe and t is an incremental time. Whence
using ((7j) fi' in (jni is given by

T

and so

So (JH) requires

Whence on using © we get

L = Lo(l - aK)

a = — (8)

Let us now consider t, to be the period of revolution in the case of the binary

(9)

(10)
(11)

pulsar.

Using

© it follows that

6L =

LotK

fJ'O

We also know

(Cf.ref.|2l|)

27r

e =

Att^L^

1^

Using 0, (fTUj) and (fTTj) . a little manipulation gives

5t=--^-^ (12)

Q and (jl2|) show that there is a decrease in the size of the orbit, as also in
the orbital period. Such a decrease in the orbital period has been observed
in the case of binary pulsars j22l 121] •

Let us now apply the above considerations to the case of the binary pulsar
PSRIQI?) + 16 observed by Taylor and coworkers (Cf.ref. |231)- In this case
it is known that, t is 8 hours while w, the orbital speed is 3 x lO^cms per
second. It is easy to calculate from the above

;xo = 10^ X 1;=^ ~ 10^^

which gives M ~ IQ^^gms, which of course agrees with observation. Further
we get using (jT]) and (0)

At = 1] X lO'^sec/yr, r] <^ 8 (13)

Indeed (jl3|) is in good agreement with the carefully observed value of ?7 ~ 7.5
(Cf.refs.[22, 23J).

It should also be remarked that in the case of gravitational radiation, there
are some objections relevant to the calculation (Cf.ref.j2Sl)-

4 Change in Orbital Parameters

To consider the above result in a more general context, we come back to the
well known orbital equation

d\/dQ^ + u = fio/h'^ (14)

where /xq = GM

M is themass of the central object and h — r'^dQ/dt - a constant and u — -.

The solution of ()14j) is well known,

lu = 1 + ecosQ

where / = h? / iiq.

It must be mentioned that in the above purely classical analysis, there is no

precession of the perihelion.

We now replace Hq by // and also assume /i to be varying slowly as G varies

slowly and uniformly as earlier:

/i = dfi/dt = fc, a constant (15)

as A; ~ 0^ and can be neglected.

Using (|15p in (J14j) and solving the orbital equation (jl4|) . the solution can now

be obtained as

u = l/l+ {e/l)cose + kl^Q/h^ + kPeQcosG/h^ (16)

Keeping terms up to the power of 'e' and (k/fio)^, the time period V for one
revolution is given to this order of approximation by

T = 2'nL'^/h (17)

From (Uni)

L-l ^^'®

Substituting in (jTTj) we have

27r / 2 2A;Z5e

r =

" /l I /i3

(18)

(19)

The second term in (|T^ represents the change in time period for one revo-
lution. The decrease of time period is given by

5t = 87vH^k/i2l (20)

The second term in pSj) indicates the decrease in latus-rectum.
For one revolution the change of latus-rectum is given by

61 = 27rkf-yfil-^ (21)

In the solar system, we have,

k = 8 .988mksunits / sec.

Using k and fiQ to find the change in time period and the latus rectum in the
varying G case by substituting in (j^U)) and (PT|) respectively for Mercury we
get

6T = 1.37 X lO-'sec/rev

51 = AMcm/rev (22)

We observe that the equations (j^ . (PT|) or (j^ show a decrease in distance
and in the time of revolution. If we use for the planetary motion, the General
Relativistic analogue of (|T^ . viz.,

^+. = ^(1 + 3/..),

then while we recover the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, for example,
there is no effect similar to (I^Uj). (PT|) or (J22I)- On the other hand this effect
is very minute and only protracted careful observations can detect it.
But as noted, the decrease of the period in ()20p has been observed in the
case of Binary Pulsars.

5 The Riddle of Gravitation

Let us now come back to the puzzle which gravitation poses. We had already
argued from different points of view to arrive at the otherwise empirically
known equations [211 ESI IHj

R = y/Nlp = VnNI

I = y/^lp (23)

where /p, / and R are the Planck length, the pion Compton wavelength and
the radius of the universe and A^, N and n are certain large numbers. Some of
these are well known empirically for example N ~ 10^° being the number of
elementary particles, which typically are taken to be pions in the literature,
in the universe.

One way of arriving at the above relations is by considering a series of N
Planck mass oscillators which are created out of the Quantum Vaccuum. In
this case (Cf. also ref.j^Hl) '^^ have

r = ^iV^ (24)

In ()24|) a is the distance between the oscillators and r is the extent. If in
(j211), T is taken as R and a is taken as Ip and similarly a is taken as / and
A^ as iV, we get back (j^ . The supposedly empirical equations (PHj) follow
from equation (J2H).

There is another way of arriving at equations (j^H|) (Cf.ref. ;2j). For this, we
observe that the position operator for the Klein- Gor dan equation is given by

EH,

Whence we get

X — n = T 4- -—

where a is a constant, irrelevant scalar. It can be seen that purely math-
ematically (j25p for X"^ defines the Harmonic oscillator equation, this time
with quantized, what may be called space levels. It turns out that these
levels are all multiples of (— )^. This Compton length is the Planck length

for a Planck mass particle. Accordingly we have for any system of extension

r,

which gives back equation ()23p. It is also known that the Planck length is
also the Schwarzschild radius of a Planck mass, that is we have

Ip = 2Gmp/c^ (26)

Using equations (j^ and (J2SI), we will now deduce a few new and valid and
a number of otherwise empirically known relations involving the various mi-
crophysical parameters and large scale parameters. Some of these relations
are deducible from the others. Many of these relations featured (empirically)
in Dirac's Large Number Cosmology. We follow Dirac and Melnikov in con-
sidering /, m, h, Ip, mp and e as microphysical parameters |3J|2H]- Large scale
parameters include the radius and the mass of the universe, the number of
elementary particles in the universe and so on.

In the process we will also examine the nature of gravitation. It must also
be observed that the Large Number relations below are to be considered in
the Dirac sense, wherein for example the difference between the electron and
pion (or proton) masses is irrelevant |17j .

We will use the following well known equation which has been obtained
through several routes (Cf. for example [^1301 1^1]):

GM , ,

2—^ = R 27

We now observe that from the first two relations of (|23p. using the Compton
wavelength expression we get

m = mp/^/n (28)

Using also the second relation in (j^ we can easily deduce

N = Nn (29)

Using (I2S1) and ^ we have

M = VNmp (30)

Interestingly (jSHI) can be obtained directly, without recourse to (|77jl. from
the energy of the Planck oscillators (Cf.ref. j^H])- Combining (|3U|) and (|28j)

we get

M = (TiVn) m (31)

Further if we use in the last of equation ()23|) the fact that Ip is the Schwarzchild
radius that is equation ^I^. we get,

G=— (32)

nm

We now observe that if we consider the gravitational energy of the N Planck
masses (which do not have any other interactions) we get,

, ^ GNml

Gravitational Energy = —

R

If this is equated to the inertial energy in the universe, Mc^ , as can be easily
verified we get back ()27|). In other words the inertial energy content of the
universe equals the gravitational energy of all the N Planck oscillators.
Similarly if we equate the gravitational energy of the n Planck oscillators
constituting the pion we get

^ = mc- (33)

Using in (|HHj) equation (|^ we get

Ipmpn
R

Whence it follows on using (j^ . (PHjl and

n3/2 = ViV, n = \fN (34)

Substituting the value for n from (|H^ into (jHH) we will get

G = -^ (35)

m

Using in (jH^ . the expression for the Compton length,

/ = h/mc

10

and further, the fact that he ^ e^, we get

Gm^ = -^ (36)

Equation ()36p is another empirically well known equation which was used by
Dirac in his Cosmology.
Interestingly also rewriting (jH^ as

Km

wherein we have used fl23|) and further using the fact that H = c/R, where
H is the Hubble constant we can deduce

,n « (^— j (37)

Equation (j37|) is the so called mysterious Weinberg formula, known empir-
ically [TTj. As Weinberg put it, "...it should be noted that the particular
combination of h, H, G, and c appearing (in the formula) is very much closer
to a typical elementary particle mass than other random combinations of
these quantities; for instance, from h, G, and c alone one can form a single
quantity (hc/GY''^ with the dimensions of a mass, but this has the value
1.22 X lO'^'^MeV/c^, more than a typical particle mass by about 20 orders of
magnitude!

"In considering the possible interpretations (of the formula), one should be
careful to distinguish it from other numerical "coincidences"... In contrast,
(the formula) relates a single cosmological parameter, H, to the fundamental
constants h, G, c and m, and is so far unexplained."

We will come back to this point but remark that ()35|) brings out gravitation
in a different light- somewhat on the lines of Sakharov. In fact it shows up
gravitation as the excess or residual energy in the universe.
Finally it may be observed that (jH3|) can also be rewritten as

^^(^)^10» (38)

and so also ()32p can be rewritten as

11

It now immediately follows that

a result that also follows from (j^Hj) itself (Cf. also [32] )■ Looking at it this
way, given G and the microphysical parameters we can deduce the numbers
A^, N and n.

Thus the many so called large number coincidences and the mysterious Wein-
berg formula can be deduced on the basis of a Planck scale underpinning for
the elementary particles and the whole universe. Moreover this also explains
the Weinberg puzzle in (j?7|) - as can be seen from (|33|). G itself contains a
large scale parameter viz., the number of particles in the universe so that H
is not the only cosmological parameter in (jH7|) . This was done from a com-
pletely different point of view, namely using fuzzy spacetime and fluctuations
in the 1997 model that as pointed out successfully predicted a dark energy
driven accelerating universe with a small cosmological constant [HI E] ■
However the above treatment brings out the role of the Planck scale os-
cillators in the Quantum Vaccuum. It resembles, as remarked earlier the
Sakharov-Zeldovich metric elasticity of space approach f33J . Essentially Sakharov
argues that the renormalization process in Quantum Field Theory which re-
moves the Zero Point energies is altered in General Relativity due to the
curvature of spacetime, that is the renormalization or subtraction no longer
gives zero but rather there is a residual energy similar to the modification
in the molecular bonding energy due to deformation of the solids. We see
this in a little more detail following Wheeler [34J. The contribution to the
Lagrangian of the Zero Point energies can be given in a power series as follows

L{r) =Ahf k^dk + Bh^^^r f kdk

+ (higher-order terms). (39)

where A, B, C etc. are of the order of unity and r denotes the curvature. By
renormalization the first term in ()39|) is eliminated. According to Sakharov,
the second term is the action principle term, with the exception of some mul-
tiplicated factors. (The higher terms in (|39|) lead to corrections in Einstein's
equations). Finally Sakharov gets

" IGTTBhJkdk ^^°^

12

Sakharov then takes a Planck scale cut off for the divergent integral in the
denominator of (J4U|) . This immediately yields

„3;2

G^^ (41)

h

Infact using relations like (j^ . © and (|Mj). it is easy to verify that (|1T|1
gives us back (jHH) (and (jHSl))-

According to Sakharov (and ()41|)). the value of G is governed by the Physics
of Fields and Particles and is a measure of the metrical elasticity at small
spacetime intervals. It is a microphysical constant.

However in our interpretation of ()H5|1 (which is essentially the same as Sakharov's
equation (HH)), G appears as the expression of a residual energy over the
entire universe: The entire universe has an underpinning of the A^ Planck os-
cillators and is made up of N elementary particles, which again each have an
underpinning of n Planck oscillators. It must be reiterated that (j41|) obtained
from Sakharov's analysis shows up G as a microphysical parameter because
it is expressed in their terms. This is also the case in Dirac's cosmology. This
is also true of (jH^ because n relates to the micro particles exclusively.
However when we use the relation ()34|). which gives n in terms of N, that
is links up the microphysical domain to the large scale domain, then we get
fjHKjl . With Sakharov's equation (jSJ, the mysterious nature of the Weinberg
formula remains. But once we use (jH^ . we are effectively using the large scale
character of G - it is not a microphysical parameter. This is brought out by
fl38|) ■ which is another form of (jH^j) . If G were a microphysical parameter,
then the number of elementary particles in the universe would depend solely
on the microphysical parameters and would not be a large scale parameter.
The important point is that G relates to elementary particles and the whole
universe [35 . That is why ^E^ or equivalently the Weinberg formula ^7\\ re-
late supposedly microphysical parameters to a cosmological parameter. Once
the character of G as brought out by ^E^ is recognized, the mystery disap-
pears.

Finally it may be remarked that attempts to unite gravitation with other in-
teractions have been unsuccessful for several decades. However, it is possible
to get a description of gravitation in an extended gauge field formulation us-
ing noncommutative geometry (to take account of the fact that the graviton
is a spin 2 particle) PUI ITB].

13

6 Discussion

1. With regard to the time variation of G, it must be mentioned that without
reference to the tests alluded to, different observations have yielded different
values. Observations on the earth, in the solar system and with Pulsars have
yielded for ^ a value ~ 10~^°/?/r as in Q. However other model dependent
observations have yielded values ~ 10~^^ and 10~^^ j^^-

2. It may also be reiterated that other major effects like bending of light and
the precession of the perihelion of Mercury have been shown to follow from
(J2]) by using similar considerations ^Hj- Moreover we can also show that
it is possible to bypass dark matter in explaining the gravitational rotation
curves jHj-

3. Another interesting consequence of the time variation of G given in Q
is that it can be shown that this leads to an immediate transition from the
Planck scale to the Compton scale by invoking considerations from black hole
thermodynamics |38j .

4. Apart from the well known coincidences, it has recently been pointed
out that there is a new coincidence [39j viz., the fact that there is a residual
energy 10~^^el^ which equals the Hubble radius (We are using natural units).
This new puzzle is easily explained by the fact that there is a minimum mass
in the universe, using the Planck scale underpinning considerations - this is
l{i~^^gms. This also turns out to be the minimum thermodynamic mass in
the universe (Cf. ^16j), and has been identified with the mass of a photon
PSI 1^ . One can immediately identify the above energy of 10~^^el^ with
the energy of this minimum mass, and as can be easily verified the Hubble
radius is the Compton length of this mass. Thus the above "coincidence"
is symptomatic of the minimum mass or energy in the universe with its
corresponding extent.

References

[1] W. Witten, Physics Today, April 1996, pp24-30.

[2] H. Weyl, "Space-Time Matter", Denver Publications Inc., New York,
1962, 282ff.

[3] Kirshner, R.P., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol.96, April 1999, pp.4224-
4227.

14

[4] Narlikar, J.V., "Introduction to Cosmology", Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1993, p. 57.

[5] Barrow, J.D., and Parsons, P., Phys.Rev.D., Vol.55, No. 4, 15 February
1997, p.l906ff.

[6] Narlikar, J.V., Foundations of Physics, Vol.13, No.3, 1983, p.31 1-323.

[7] Narlikar, J.V., "The Structure of the Universe", Oxford University
Press, Delhi, 1977, pp.l69ff.

[8] Sidharth, B.C., "Chaotic Universe: From the Planck to the Hubble
Scale", Nova Science, New York, 2002.

[9] Sidharth, B.C., Int.J.Mod.Phys.A, 13 (15), 1998, p.2599ff.

[10] Sidharth, B.C., Int.J.Th.Phys., 37 (4), 1998, p.l307ff.

[11] Sidharth, B.C., Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 16 (4), 2003, pp.613-620.

[12] Sidharth, B.C., Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 18 (1), 2003, pp.197-201.

[13] Perlmutter, S., et al. Nature, Vol.391, 1 January 1998, p. 51-59.

[14] Glanz, J., Science, Vol.282, 18 December 1998, p.2156.

[15] Science, Vol. 302, No.5653, 19 December 2003, pp.2038.

[16] B.C. Sidharth, "Universe of Fluctuations" , Springer, Dordrecht, 2005.

[17] Weinberg, S., "Gravitation and Cosmology", John Wiley & Sons, New
York, 1972, p.62.

[18] Sidharth, B.C., II Nuovo Cimento, 115B (12), (2), 2000, pg.l51.

[19] Sidharth, B.C., Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 22, 2004, 537-540.

[20] Anderson, J.D., et al, Phys.Rev.D65, 2002, 082004ff.

[21] Goldstein, H., "Classical Mechanics", Addison- Wesley, Reading, Mass.,
1966, pp.76ff.

[22] Ohanian, C.H., and Rufiini, R., "Gravitation and Spacetime", New
York, 1994, pp.64ff.

15

[23] Will, C, in "The New Physics", Ed. P. Davies, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1989, p.7ff.

[24] B.C. Sidharth, Found.Phys.Letters., 15 (6), 2002, 577-583.

[25] B.C. Sidharth, Found.Phys.Letters., 17 (5), 2004, 503-506.

[26] Y. Jack Ng and H. Van Dam, Mod.Phys.Lett.A., 9 (4), 1994, p.335-340.

[27] S.S. Schweber, "An Introduction to Relativistic Quantum Field The-
ory", Harper and Row, New York, 1961.

[28] V.N. Melnikov, Int.J.Th.Phys., 33 (7), 1994, 1569-1579.

[29] Hayakawa, S., Suppl of PTP Commemmorative Issue, 1965, 532-541.

[30] Nottale, L., "Fractal Space-Time and Microphysics: Towards a Theory
of Scale Relativity" , World Scientific, Singapore, 1993, p. 312.

[31] Rufiini, R., and Zang, L.Z., "Basic Concepts in Relativistic Astro-
physics", World Scientific, Singapore, 1983, p. 11 Iff.

[32] Sidharth, B.C., Int.J.Mod.Phys.E, 15 (1), 2006, pp255flF.

[33] A.D. Sakharov, Soviet Physics - Doklady, Vol.12, No.ll, 1968, p.l040-
1041.

[34] C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne and J. A. Wheeler, "Gravitation", W.H. Free-
man, San Francisco, 1973, p.819ff.

[35] B.C. Sidharth, Found.Phys.Lett., 18 (4), 2005.

[36] B.C. Sidharth, "Gravitation from a Gauge like Formulation", to appear
in Annales de la Fondation Louis De Broglie.

[37] Uzan, J.P., Rev.Mod.Phys., 75, April 2003, pp.403-455.

[38] Sidharth, B.C., Foundation of Physics Letters, 19 (1), 2006, pp.87flF.

[39] Mersini-Houghton, L., Mod.Phys.Let.A., Vol.21, No.l, 2006, 1-21.

[40] Sidharth, B.C., "A Note on Massive Photons", to appear in Foundations
of Physics Letters.

16